D&D 5E DM's: How Do You Justify NPC's Having Magic/Abilities That Don't Exist in the PHB?

[Micah Sweet]

You're the DM - fix it.

My players balk at things that directly make their lives worse past a certain point.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Obligatory Grod's Law reminder: You cannot and should not balance mechanics by making them annoying to use.

Truth be told, I've never really believed in Grod.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Truth be told, I've never really believed in Grod.

That’s ok. Grod believes in you.

 

[Lanefan]

Obligatory Grod's Law reminder: You cannot and should not balance mechanics by making them annoying to use.

Annoying at the table is one thing. Annoying or risky to the characters in the fiction is another; and character-side risk can be and often is an excellent balancing factor.

 

[Hussar]

Annoying at the table is one thing. Annoying or risky to the characters in the fiction is another; and character-side risk can be and often is an excellent balancing factor.

But, that's always a really tough thing to balance. IME, what typically happens is if you exceed a certain point, any character side risk is just considered unacceptable, and that option is just never used. Which, by that point, means you might as well not have the option at all.

 

[James Gasik]

But, that's always a really tough thing to balance. IME, what typically happens is if you exceed a certain point, any character side risk is just considered unacceptable, and that option is just never used. Which, by that point, means you might as well not have the option at all.

Pretty much, yes. Either it becomes soft banned because nobody uses it due to the annoyance factor, or they find ways to circumvent the annoyance.

 

[Shadowdweller00]

But, that's always a really tough thing to balance. IME, what typically happens is if you exceed a certain point, any character side risk is just considered unacceptable, and that option is just never used. Which, by that point, means you might as well not have the option at all.

There are often pretty straightforward means of balancing this stuff. Math usually. Occasionally with some "by feel" or "by testing" thrown in. The world is filled with risky and dangerous things.

Fire is risky. Fire can burn you, get out of control and burn down houses. Cars are dangerous. Motor vehicle accidents are the leading cause of death for many age groups. Guns are dangerous, even to the wielder. Or rather bullets are. They have a nonzero chance of misfiring or ricocheting in a ways that causes injury. When subjected to flame, munitions can explode. Surgery is dangerous. Surgery can go wrong in ways that lead to death, injury, or life-threatening infection.

There are absolutely circumstances where it is not beneficial to use fire, cars, guns, or surgery. And yet...

 

[Lanefan]

But, that's always a really tough thing to balance. IME, what typically happens is if you exceed a certain point, any character side risk is just considered unacceptable, and that option is just never used. Which, by that point, means you might as well not have the option at all.

If the potential reward is great enough, sooner or later someone will use it. Guaran-damn-teed.

Then again, if character-side risk is unacceptable then how and why are they adventuring in the first place?

 

[Micah Sweet]

If the potential reward is great enough, sooner or later someone will use it. Guaran-damn-teed.

Then again, if character-side risk is unacceptable then how and why are they adventuring in the first place?

The equation does tend to shift when you take something that already exists in the game and specifically make it harder to use. A big problem with house rules in general is that most of them make things harder for the PCs.

It doesn't stop me, even when I am a player, from wanting those changes. But it can be tricky for many players to swallow.

 

[Bill Zebub]

If the potential reward is great enough, sooner or later someone will use it.

Pretty sure that’s a tautology.